how do we say?

[timi_julie]

we sell all kinds of cloth/all kind of cloth/ all kind of cloths

 

[engee30]

We sell all kinds of cloth. :tick: /all kind of cloth :cross: / all kind of cloths :cross:

♥♦♣♠ NOT A TEACHER ♥♦♣♠

When you use all with kind, kind is always plural.

 

[MrPedantic]

If you're thinking of a shop that sells different kinds of cloth for making e.g. clothes or curtains, you would probably be more likely to hear:

1. We sell all kinds of material.

Best wishes,

MrP

 

[5jj]

When you use all with kind, kind is always plural.

Actually, it can stay singular especially with a non-plural noun:

He got up to all kind of mischief.

Indeed, 11 of the 18 citations for 'all kind of' in British National Corpus (BYU-BNC) are followed by plural nouns.

Some people do consider 'all kind of' to be somehow not correct, but with 459 citations in http://www.americancorpus.org/?q=2901330, it appears to be widely used.

 

[MrPedantic]

I would find "all kind of" + a non-plural noun quite strange. It may be worth noting that five or so of the BNC examples are a different kind of "all kind of" (e.g. "it's all kind of a joke"), and that "all kinds of" returns 764 results against those 18. Thus "all kind of" in the sense in question accounts for not more than 2% of the combined results.

Best wishes,

MrP

 

[5jj]

I would find "all kind of" + a non-plural noun quite strange. It may be worth noting that five or so of the BNC examples are a different kind of "all kind of" (e.g. "it's all kind of a joke"), and that "all kinds of" returns 764 results against those 18. Thus "all kind of" in the sense in question accounts for not more than 2% of the combined results.

I accept this, Mr P, although 2% of 100 million words is not to be sniffed at.

In my post, I was simply attempting to suggest that it was not helpful to present such statements as:

When you use all with kind, kind is always plural

as if they were clearly true.

They are not.

 

[MrPedantic]

I accept this, Mr P, although 2% of 100 million words is not to be sniffed at.

Sorry, my post was unclear - I meant that "all kind of" accounts for 2% of the combined results for "all kinds of" and "all kind of", i.e. 2% of 782 items, rather than 2% of the entire database.

All the best,

MrP

 

[5jj]

Sorry, my post was unclear - I meant that "all kind of" accounts for 2% of the combined results for "all kinds of" and "all kind of", i.e. 2% of 782 items, rather than 2% of the entire database.

You were actually quite clear. I just read your post in a brain-dead moment. Sorry.

 

[engee30]

I accept this, Mr P, although 2% of 100 million words is not to be sniffed at.

In my post, I was simply attempting to suggest that it was not helpful to present such statements as:

When you use all with kind, kind is always plural

as if they were clearly true.

They are not.

If I were to split hairs, I'd go like this - the sentence of one of your posts above sounds really strange to my ears.

As an abstract non-count noun, mischief cannot have any different kinds of it; rather, you could get up to different (kinds of) forms of mischief, but not kinds as such.
Obviously, there must be a differentiation between nouns within the group of so-called abstract non-count nouns. Let's take music, for instance - the noun falls into the same group, and yet, it's absolutely fine to use all kinds of with music, for we've actually got a few kinds of music: jazz, blues and rock, just to name a few of them.

So I'll stand up and be counted as the supporter of the words of mine:
When you use all with kind, kind is always plural.

 

[5jj]

As an abstract non-count noun, mischief cannot have any different kinds of it; rather, you could get up to different (kinds of) forms of mischief, but not kinds as such.

Of course you can have different kinds of mischief.

So I'll stand up and be counted as the supporter of the words of mine:
When you use all with kind, kind is always plural.

I am pleased to note that you appear to consider yourself the only supporter.;-)

You can think it incorrect or illogical if you wish, but it is not always plural. There are 459 citations in COCA that show that some people use it.

It is true that some of these are similar to this one: Then we all kind of smiled. This is rather different, but there are many instances of all kind of followed by singular, plural and uncountable nouns.

 

[engee30]

It is true that some of these are similar to this one: Then we all kind of smiled. This is rather different, but there are many instances of all kind of followed by singular, plural and uncountable nouns.

I know there are (I've been using the corpora for quite a long time now), but the question is whether or not you're a supporter of using such a form and consider it correct, all kind of. I would have thought it's all that determines the use of plural form of kind, and not the noun following it.

 

[5jj]

I know there are (I've been using the corpora for quite a long time now).

Then it seems a little strange to write: When you use all with kind, kind is always plural.

 

[engee30]

Then it seems a little strange to write: When you use all with kind, kind is always plural.

Yes, you've got a point there. Let me rephrase it a bit then:
When you use all with kind, kind should be plural.

 

[5jj]

Yes, you've got a point there. Let me rephrase it a bit then:
When you use all with kind, kind should be plural.

If you use 'should', shouldn't you add 'in my opinion'?

I accept that 'all kind of' appears to be illogical, that 'all kinds of' is more widely used, and that some people feel that 'all kind of' is incorrect.

As a teacher, I would suggest that my students, especially those preparing for examinations, always use 'all kinds of'.

But, it seems that 'all kind of' is becoming acceptable, to some at least. Who are we to say that this is incorrect?

 

[engee30]

If you use 'should', shouldn't you add 'in my opinion'?

Not only is that my own opinion, it is also in agreement with my two sources, Collins and Oxford.

I accept that 'all kind of' appears to be illogical, that 'all kinds of' is more widely used, and that some people feel that 'all kind of' is incorrect.

As a teacher, I would suggest that my students, especially those preparing for examinations, always use 'all kinds of'.

Sounds great. :up:

But, it seems that 'all kind of' is becoming acceptable, to some at least. Who are we to say that this is incorrect?

I've already answered your question in one of the parts of my reply above.

 

[5jj]

In considering the very similar those kind of, Michael Swan writes:

“Plural demonstratives (these and those) can also be used. […]

Do you smoke those kind of cigarettes?”

It is true that he does not give this structure a heartfelt seal of approval. He adds “This structure is often felt to be incorrect, and is usually avoided in a formal style”.

So, the respected writer of Practical English Usage (3rd edition (2005) OUP) says that we can use those kind of, and does not actually say that it is incorrect. I feel the same about all kind of.


Swan's book is published by Oxford University Press. Which Oxford book is your source, and what does it actually say?

 

[engee30]

Which Oxford book is your source, and what does it actually say?

It's in the 7th edition of OALD, in a grammar box below the entry for kind. A part of the grammar note says: Use the singular (kind/sort) or plural (kinds/sorts) depending on the word you use before them - each/one/every kind of animal ◙ all/many/other sorts of animals.

 

[5jj]

It's in the 7th edition of OALD, in a grammar box below the entry for kind. A part of the grammar note says: Use the singular (kind/sort) or plural (kinds/sorts) depending on the word you use before them - each/one/every kind of animal ◙ all/many/other sorts of animals.

I am a little behind you; I am still using the sixth edition.

Still, the box begins with the same word. A few lines lower down, it also has the words:

"Other variations are possible but less common. [...] These sort of things don't happen in real life."
OK, this example is with sort rather than kind, but the principle is the same. Do those words not appear in the seventh edition?

 

[engee30]

"Other variations are possible but less common. [...] These sort of things don't happen in real life."
OK, this example is with sort rather than kind, but the principle is the same. Do those words not appear in the seventh edition?

They do, yes, preceding this: [...] (This example is very informal and is considered incorrect by some people.) [..]
At least we both know that the two editions have the same grammar notes for kind.
:-D

 

[5jj]

At least we both know that the two editions have the same grammar notes for kind.

We also know that they appear to agree with case I have been arguing.

So, we now have me, Practical English Usage, the Oxford ALD, COCA, and BNC all suggesting that "When you use all with kind, kind should be plural" is not true of current English.